Publication Ethics and Allegations of Research Misconduct

Jurnal Psikopedia is an open access peer-reviewed journal. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal as well as allegations of research misconduct, including authors, chief editor, associate editor, editorial board, peer-reviewers­­­­­ and publisher (Universitas Negeri Manado). This statement is based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed JPsi journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of work of the authors and institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is, therefore, essential to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, publisher, and society. Universitas Gadjah Mada, as the publisher of Jurnal Psikologi, takes its' duties to oversee all stages of publishing extremely seriously, and we recognize our ethical responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. 

 

Allegations of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research by authors, or in reporting research results. 

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them in resolving the complaint and addressing the misconduct fairly. This process will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and will be linked to the original article.

The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and an assessment of whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also includes determining whether the individual's alleging misconduct has relevant conflicts of interest. 

If possible scientific misconduct or other substantial research irregularities are present, the corresponding author will be informed of the allegation on behalf of the co-authors to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, it would be sufficient for authors to clarify and/or provide additional analysis through a written letter to the editor, which may include corrections of the published manuscripts.

Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of the scientific misconduct allegations. Ultimately, the authors, journal editors, and institutions have an essential obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct, and taking necessary actions based on evaluation of these concerns (i.e., corrections, retractions with replacement, retractions), JPsi journal will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

Publication Decisions

The editor of Jurnal Psikopedia is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall be enforced not to conduct libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Complaints and Appeals

Jurnal Psikologi has a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board, or Publisher. The complaints will be clarified to the respective person concerning the claim. The scope of complaints includes anything related to the journal management (i.e., editorial process, found citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer, peer-review manipulation). The complaint cases will be processed according to the COPE guideline. The complaint cases should be sent by email to psikopedia@unima.ac.id.

Fair play

An editor evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The editor and editorial staff are prohibited from disclosing any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions	Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Promptness	Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse him or herself from the review process.
Confidentiality	Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity	Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgment of Sources	Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is derived from the previously reported observation or argument should be accompanied by relevant citations. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest	Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

 

Duties of Authors

Reporting Standards	Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Data Access, Retention and Reproducibility	Authors might be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. The authors are responsible for data reproducibility.
Originality and Plagiarism	The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication	An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgment of Sources	Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship and Contributorship of the Article	Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest	All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental Errors in Published Work	When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

 

Ethical Oversight  If the research work involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must identify these in the manuscript to obey the ethical conduct of research using animals and human subjects. If required, the Authors must provide legal, ethical clearance from the association or legal organization.  If the research involves confidential data and of business/marketing practices, authors should clearly justify this matter whether the data or information will be hidden securely or not.  Intellectual Property (Copyright Policy) Journal policy about intellectual property or copyright is declared here: https://ejurnal.unima.ac.id/psikopedia/about/submissions#copyrightNotice Peer-Review Process Policy Peer-Review process/policy is declared here: https://ejurnal.unima.ac.id/psikopedia/pages/view/PeerReviewProcess Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections Jurnal Psikopedia accepts discussion and corrections on published articles by readers. Readers can contact the Editor in Chief by email to raise issues or discussions regarding a published report. If accepted (by Editor in Chief), the discussions and corrections will be published in our Letter to Editor Section on our website. Respected Authors can reply/answer the discussions and corrections from the reader by sending the reply to the Editor in Chief. Therefore, Editors may publish the answer as Reply to Letter to Editor.